Editor’s Note: The Presidental Election system proposed here has been re-formatted on our campaign website at https://www.fialforward.com/blog/reforming-presidential-elections-a-fairer-system-for-america . We’ve included the below for archival purposes.
Editor's Note: The system text below was originally proposed as part 4 of 7 in a longer campaign newsletter, but has since been edited and expanded... Signup for the email list at https://www.fialforward.com/
Let's talk about future Presidential elections. What I envision for the Presidency is quite simplea a national lottery system combined with rank choice voting.
When most people hear “lottery" system, they might think of one winner among millions — one winner of money, or in this case, of the election. However, in the context of an election, what's meant here is that the lottery selects a number of candidates eligible for that position. In this case, all American born citizens 35 years or older could either A) be automatically in the lottery (opt-out system) unless they decided not to be on the national list, or B) manually placed in the lottery pool (opt-in). The second is my preference, as it would narrow the pool, and interested Americans would have to manually join the pool.
Every four years, fifty or a hundred or so Americans would be chose at random from the pool, and those would be our beginning "Presidential Candidates." They would span all (eligible) ages, all parties, all major religions, many states, many professions, and all education and income levels. My guesstimate is that maybe half of those selected by the lottery would decide within a few weeks that, now eligible, they really didn’t want the job of U.S. President. In my opinion, a lottery selecting 100 American candidates would reduce to 50 candidates within a month, before the campaign season even really heated up. As the non-serious dropped out, the rest would begin their campaigns, and within a few weeks, the nation might be organizing debates for those with the best ideas, or most media attention. Reminder: media attention, especially in the future, includes attention outside the traditional news-media, using an ever-maturing non-partisan social media field. A few more debates might narrow the pool down further, and whether we hit election day with five major candidates or a crowded field of fifteen, we would use ranked choice voting nationwide.
If you're already sold on ranked choice voting (RCV), great! If not, there's a gigantic post-election advantage to using RCV at the level of Presidential elections. The President-Elect would be very likely to employ some (or all) of the 2nd-10th place candidates in their administration. This ensures broad support for the (future) President, ensures civic disagreement in future cabinets, and lets voters feel secure if their first choice vote (using RCV) did not win the Presidency.
I would still support restricting the first one-, two- or three lotteries to eligible women. This would ensure excellent female Candidates and a first female President at least as good as the male Presidents of our lifetime, and likely far better. Critics argue this would be unfair, that restricting the pool to women is the sinister “equality of outcome,” fixing the outcome of the choice, rather than providing everyone an “equality of opportunity,” which should be the goal and method of any "affirmative action." However, given 250-years of consecutive male Presidents, I think most American men would at least consider restricting the first lottery to women.
Personally, I'd propose also allowing former Presidents to be eligible to run for re-election. For example, if I win the Presidency in 2024, and this system were Amended to the Constitution in 2026, former Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden could both run in the future, forgetting their age limitations. I could (and would) step down after 1-term, supporting the first lottery, but retaining the ability to run for re-election for the latter decades of my lifetime.
One large question looms, though: would the non-winners *By the way, calling them "non-winners" rather than "losers" isn't merely a vain attempt to soften the language, it's also because in ranked-choice-voting, second- and third- and fourth-places become respectable titles, just like "silver" and "bronze" sporting medals. But should all, some, or none of the non-winners be allowed to run again in future elections? That might be the hardest question to decide.
There’s also no need to debate the pros and cons of the Electoral College, the system here would be considerably better than either a) the archaic Electoral College, or b) a strict popular vote. A strict popular vote doesn't change the underlying domination of our two corrupt political parties, or the preference for existing rich, famous, or socially connected politicians. However, this proposed lottery + RCV system eliminates all those concerns.
Finally, regarding the many years we currently spend on each "election cycle:" with this system, the icing on the cake would be eliminating the need for Presidential elections to suck up 18-24 months of our national cognitive attention. Remember, our drawn-out Presidential election season not only wastes over a year of our attention and billions of dollars, it also reduces the power of the sitting President, harming our democracy! Combining a lottery and RCV, as proposed here, could reduce the election season to a few short months, warranting national attention. I propose we discuss setting the length at 4-months, from lottery to election day, selecting new Presidential Candidates around Independence Day!
Update Log:
- 2023 was when I first had the idea of combining these two ideas, but I'm not sure which month. For much of 2023, I was blindly focused on old methods to improve how we elect our Presidents: one President per family, age limits, political limits on existing Congresspersons, etc. But as this page argues, combining a lottery + RCV is a far better approach.
2024-02: Drafted and Posted - 2024-08:
- Light edits to style.
- Addition of paragraph/concept restricting first lotter(y | ies) to women only. (This idea was not new, it pre-dated this idea and was originally proposed in mid-2023.)
- Expansion of explanations of the system's benefits.
Edited version from chatGPT, posted 2024-02:
The text below is the 'expanded' version chatGPT gave when I decided to move the above to a separate blog post, shortening the email. chatGPT had the entire long letter + other content from previous campaign chats.
Rethinking Democracy: An Innovative Electoral System Proposal
Introduction: In today's political landscape, where disillusionment seems as common as debate, it's clear that our electoral system is ripe for innovation. The need for a system that truly reflects the diverse voices and concerns of our nation has never been more pressing. In this spirit, I propose a bold new approach to how we select our leaders—a model designed to enhance representation, encourage fresh perspectives, and foster genuine unity.
The Proposal: A National Lottery Combined with Ranked-Choice Voting
National Lottery for Candidate Selection: Imagine an electoral system where every American citizen has a potential stake in the leadership of their country, not just as voters but as potential candidates. Our proposal begins with a national lottery system to select a pool of presidential candidates. This isn't a call for randomness in leadership but an invitation for every American, regardless of their economic background, education level, or political connections, to have a shot at steering the national dialogue.
- Opt-in/Opt-out Mechanism: To ensure that only those genuinely interested in serving are considered, the system would include options for citizens to either opt-in or opt-out of the candidate pool.
- Diversity and Representation: By democratizing the initial stage of candidacy, we open the door to a broader array of voices, from the heartland to the coasts, from every socioeconomic status and walk of life.
Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV): The selected candidates would then be subject to a ranked-choice voting system. This method allows voters to rank candidates by preference, ensuring that the winner enjoys broad support and reducing the polarizing "winner-takes-all" mentality that dominates our current political environment.
- Encouraging Nuanced Choice: RCV encourages voters to express their true preferences without fear of "wasting" their vote, fostering a more honest and nuanced electoral dialogue.
- Reducing Partisanship: This system naturally diminishes extreme partisanship by incentivizing candidates to appeal to a broader audience to gain secondary or tertiary ranked votes.
The Impact: This proposal isn't just about changing how we vote; it's about transforming our political culture. By leveling the playing field for candidacy and implementing a voting system that rewards consensus and broad appeal, we can begin to heal the divisions that fray our national fabric.
- Empowering the Electorate: This system empowers voters, giving them a greater sense of ownership and investment in the electoral process and the outcomes it produces.
- Fostering Unity and Bipartisanship: By encouraging candidates to seek support beyond their base, we foster a political environment where bipartisanship and cross-party dialogue are not just beneficial but necessary for success.
Conclusion: The challenges facing our democracy are significant, but they are not insurmountable. With innovative thinking and a collective will for change, we can reimagine our electoral system in a way that truly serves the American people. This proposal is a starting point for a broader conversation about how we can achieve a more inclusive, representative, and united political future.
Visit our campaign's website to join the conversation and explore how we can make this vision a reality.